Puccio v. Caputo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puccio v. Caputo

272 A.D.2d 387, 707 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5092

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 387 (Puccio v. Caputo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Puccio v. Caputo, 272 A.D.2d 387, 707 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 24, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc., and Juan Perez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc. (hereinafter PSA), and Juan Perez, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. PSA, the owner of a tractor trailer delivery truck, and Perez, the operator of the truck, established that the operator of the other vehicle, the defendant Lucille Caputo, was negligent as a matter of law by failing to stop at a stop sign and colliding with the side of the tractor trailer as it passed through the intersection (see, Hines v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 506; Wolfson v Milillo, 262 AD2d 636). In opposition, the plaintiffs, who were passengers in the Caputo vehicle, failed to submit evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether Perez was in any way at fault in causing the accident (see, Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 24, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc., and Juan Perez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc. (hereinafter PSA), and Juan Perez, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. PSA, the owner of a tractor trailer delivery truck, and Perez, the operator of the truck, established that the operator of the other vehicle, the defendant Lucille Caputo, was negligent as a matter of law by failing to stop at a stop sign and colliding with the side of the tractor trailer as it passed through the intersection (see, Hines v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 506; Wolfson v Milillo, 262 AD2d 636). In opposition, the plaintiffs, who were passengers in the Caputo vehicle, failed to submit evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether Perez was in any way at fault in causing the accident (see, Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 387, 707 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puccio-v-caputo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack